Books: The Apology of the Augsburg Confession
P >>
Philip Melanchthon >> The Apology of the Augsburg Confession
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 | 24 |
25
Again, this also is false, namely, that monastic observances are
works of the counsels of the Gospel. For the Gospel does not advise
concerning distinctions of clothing and meats and the renunciation of
property. These are human traditions, concerning all of which it has
been said, 1 Cor. 8, 8: Meat commendeth us not to God. Therefore
they are neither justifying services nor perfection; yea, when they
are presented covered with these titles, they are mere doctrines of
demons.
Virginity is recommended, but to those who have the gift, as has been
said above. It is, however, a most pernicious error to hold that
evangelical perfection lies in human traditions. For thus the monks
even of the Mohammedans would be able to boast that they have
evangelical perfection. Neither does it lie in the observance of
other things which are called adiaphora, but because the kingdom of
God is righteousness and life
in hearts, Rom. 14, 17, perfection is growth in the fear of God, and
in confidence in the mercy promised in Christ, and in devotion to
one's calling just as Paul also describes perfection 2 Cor. 3, 18: We
are changed from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.
He does not say: We are continually receiving another hood, or other
sandals, or other girdles. It is deplorable that in the Church such
pharisaic, yea, Mohammedan expressions should be read and heard as,
that the perfection of the Gospel of the kingdom of Christ, which is
eternal life, should be placed in these foolish observances of
vestments and of similar trifles.
Now hear our Areopagites [excellent teachers] as to what an unworthy
declaration they have recorded in the Confutation. Thus they say: It
has been expressly declared in the Holy Scriptures that the monastic
life merits eternal life if maintained by a due observance, which by
the grace of God any monk can maintain; and, indeed, Christ has
promised this as much more abundant to those who have left home or
brothers, etc., Matt. 19, 29. These are the words of the adversaries
in which it is first said most impudently that it is expressed in the
Holy Scriptures that a monastic life merits eternal life. For where
do the Holy Scriptures speak of a monastic life! Thus the
adversaries plead their case thus men of no account quote the
Scriptures. Although no one is ignorant that the monastic life has
recently been devised, nevertheless they cite the authority of
Scripture, and say, too, that this their decree has been expressly
declared in the Scriptures.
Besides, they dishonor Christ when they say that by monasticism men
merit eternal life. God has ascribed not even to His Law the honor
that it should merit eternal life, as He clearly says in Ezek. 20, 25:
I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby
they should not live. In the first place, it is certain that a
monastic life does not merit the remission of sins, but we obtain
this by faith freely, as has been said above. Secondly, for Christ's
sake, through mercy, eternal life is granted to those who by faith
receive remission, and do not set their own merits against God's
judgment, as Bernard also says with very great force: It is necessary
first of all to believe that you cannot have the remission of sine
unless by God's indulgence. Secondly, that you can have no good work
whatever, unless He has given also this. Lastly, that you can merit
eternal life by no works, unless this also is given freely. The rest
that follows to the same effect we have above recited. Moreover,
Bernard adds at the end: Let no one deceive himself, because if he
will reflect well, he will undoubtedly find that with ten thousand he
cannot meet Him [namely, God] who cometh against him with twenty
thousand. Since however, we do not
merit the remission of sins or eternal life by the works of the
divine Law, but it is necessary to seek the mercy promised in Christ,
much less is this honor of meriting the remission of sins or eternal
life to be ascribed to monastic observances since they are mere human
traditions.
Thus those who teach that the monastic life merits the remission of
sins or eternal life, and transfer the confidence due Christ to these
foolish observances, altogether suppress the Gospel concerning the
free remission of sins and the promised mercy in Christ that is to be
apprehended. Instead of Christ they worship their own hoods and
their own filth. But since even they need mercy, they act wickedly
in fabricating works of supererogation, and selling them [their
superfluous claim upon heaven] to others.
We speak the more briefly concerning these subjects, because from
those things which we have said above concerning justification,
concerning repentance, concerning human traditions, it is
sufficiently evident that monastic vows are not a price on account of
which the remission of sins and life eternal are granted. And since
Christ calls traditions useless services, they are in no way
evangelical perfection.
But the adversaries cunningly wish to appear as if they modify the
common opinion concerning perfection. They say that a monastic life
is not perfection, but that it is a state in which to acquire
perfection. It is prettily phrased! We remember that this
correction is found in Gerson. For it is apparent that prudent men,
offended by these immoderate praises of monastic life, since they did
not venture to remove entirely from it the praise of perfection, have
added the correction that it is a state in which to acquire
perfection. If we follow this, monasticism will be no more a state
of perfection than the life of a farmer or mechanic. For these are
also states in which to acquire perfection. For all men, in every
vocation, ought to seek perfection, that is, to grow in the fear of
God in faith, in love towards one's neighbor, and similar spiritual
virtues.
In the histories of the hermits there are examples of Anthony and of
others which make the various spheres of life equal. It is written
that when Anthony asked God to show him what progress he was making
in this kind of life, a certain shoemaker in the city of Alexandria
was indicated to him in a dream to whom he should be compared. The
next day Anthony came into the city, and went to the shoemaker in
order to ascertain his exercises and gifts, and, having conversed
with the man, heard nothing except that early in the morning he
prayed in a few words for the entire state, and then attended to his
trade. Here Anthony learned that justification is not to be ascribed to
the kind of life which he had entered [what God had meant by the
revelation; for we are justified before God not through this or that
life, but alone through faith in Christ].
But although the adversaries now moderate their praises concerning
perfection, yet they actually think otherwise. For they sell merits,
and apply them on behalf of others under the pretext that they are
observing precepts and counsels, hence they actually hold that they
have superfluous merits. But what is it to arrogate to one's self
perfection, if this is not? Again, it has been laid down in the
_Confutation_ that the monks endeavor to live more nearly in
accordance with the Gospel. Therefore it ascribes perfection to
human traditions if they are living more nearly in accordance with
the Gospel by not having property, being unmarried, and obeying the
rule in clothing, meats, and like trifles.
Again, the _Confutation_ says that the monks merit eternal life the
more abundantly, and quotes Scripture, Matt. 19, 29: Every one that
hath forsaken houses, etc. Accordingly, here, too, it claims
perfection also for factitious religious rites. But this passage of
Scripture in no way favors monastic life. For Christ does not mean
that to forsake parents, wife, brethren, is a work that must be done
because it merits the remission of sins and eternal life. Yea, such
a forsaking is cursed. For if any one forsakes parents or wife in
order by this very work to merit the remission of sins or eternal
life, this is done with dishonor to Christ.
There is, moreover, a twofold forsaking. One occurs without a call,
without God's command; this Christ does not approve, Matt. 15, 9. For
the works chosen by us are useless services. But that Christ does
not approve this flight appears the more clearly from the fact that
He speaks of forsaking wife and children. We know, however, that
God's commandment forbids the forsaking of wife and children. The
forsaking which occurs by God's command is of a different kind,
namely, when power or tyranny compels us either to depart or to deny
the Gospel. Here we have the command that we should rather bear
injury, that we should rather suffer not only wealth, wife, and
children, but even life, to be taken from us. This forsaking Christ
approves, and accordingly He adds: For the Gospel's sake, Mark 10, 29,
in order to signify that He is speaking not of those who do injury
to wife and children, but who bear injury on account of the
confession of the Gospel. For the Gospel's sake we ought even to
forsake our body. Here it would be ridiculous to hold that it would
be a service to God to kill one's self, and without God's command to
leave the body. So, too, it is ridiculous to hold that it is a service
to God without God's command to forsake possessions, friends, wife,
children.
Therefore it is evident that they wickedly distort Christ's word to a
monastic life. Unless perhaps the declaration that they "receive a
hundredfold in this life" be in place here. For very many become
monks not on account of the Gospel but on account of sumptuous living
and idleness, who find the most ample riches instead of slender
patrimonies. But as the entire subject of monasticism is full of
shams, so, by a false pretext they quote testimonies of Scripture,
and as a consequence they sin doubly, i.e., they deceive men, and
that, too, under the pretext of the divine name.
Another passage is also cited concerning perfection Matt. 19, 21: If
thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the
poor, and come and follow Me. This passage has exercised many, who
have imagined that it is perfection to cast away possessions and the
control of property. Let us allow the philosophers to extol
Aristippus, who cast a great weight of gold into the sea. [Cynics
like Diogenes, who would have no house, but lay in a tub, may commend
such heathenish holiness.] Such examples pertain in no way to
Christian perfection. [Christian holiness consists in much higher
matters than such hypocrisy.] The division, control and possession of
property are civil ordinances, approved by God's Word in the
commandment, Ex. 20, 15: Thou shalt not steal. The abandonment of
property has no command or advice in the Scriptures. For evangelical
poverty does not consist in the abandonment of property, but in not
being avaricious, in not trusting in wealth, just as David was poor
in a most wealthy kingdom.
Therefore, since the abandonment of property is merely a human
tradition, it is a useless service. Excessive also are the praises
in the Extravagant, which says that the abdication of the ownership
of all things for God's sake is meritorious and holy, and a way of
perfection. And it is very dangerous to extol with such excessive
praises a matter conflicting with political order. [When
inexperienced people hear such commendations, they conclude that it
is unchristian to hold property whence many errors and seditions
follow, through such commendations Muentzer was deceived, and thereby
many Anabaptists were led astray.] But [they say] Christ here speaks
of perfection. Yea, they do violence to the text who quote it
mutilated. Perfection is in that which Christ adds: Follow Me. An
example of obedience in one's calling is here presented. And as
callings are unlike [one is called to rulership, a second to be
father of a family, a third to be a preacher], so this calling does
not belong to all, but pertains properly to
that person with whom Christ there speaks, just as the call of David
to the kingdom, and of Abraham to slay his son, are not to be
imitated by us. Callings are personal, just as matters of business
themselves vary with times and persons; but the example of obedience
is general. Perfection would have belonged to that young man if he
had believed and obeyed this vocation. Thus perfection with us is
that every one with true faith should obey his own calling. [Not
that I should undertake a strange calling for which I have not the
commission or command of God.]
Thirdly. In monastic vows chastity is promised. We have said above,
however, concerning the marriage of priests, that the law of nature
[or of God] in men cannot be removed by vows or enactments. And as
all do not have the gift of continence, many because of weakness are
unsuccessfully continent. Neither, indeed, can any vows or any
enactments abolish the command of the Holy Ghost 1 Cor. 7, 2: To
avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife. Therefore this
vow is not lawful in those who do not have the gift of continence,
but who are polluted on account of weakness. Concerning this entire
topic enough has been said above, in regard to which indeed it is
strange, since the dangers and scandals are occurring before men's
eyes that the adversaries still defend their traditions contrary to
the manifest command of God. Neither does the voice of Christ move
them, who chides the Pharisees, Matt. 23, 13 f., who had made
traditions contrary to God's command.
Fourthly. Those who live in monasteries are released from their vows
by such godless ceremonies as of the Mass applied on behalf of the
dead for the sake of gain, the worship of saints, in which the fault
is twofold, both that the saints are put in Christ's place, and that
they are wickedly worshiped, just as the Dominicasters invented the
rosary of the Blessed Virgin, which is mere babbling not less foolish
than it is wicked, and nourishes the most vain presumption. Then,
too, these very impieties are applied only for the sake of gain.
Likewise, they neither hear nor teach the Gospel concerning the free
remission of sins for Christ's sake, concerning the righteousness of
faith, concerning true repentance, concerning works which have God's
command. But they are occupied either in philosophic discussions or
in the handing down of ceremonies that obscure Christ.
We will not here speak of the entire service of ceremonies, of the
lessons, singing, and similar things, which could be tolerated if
they [were regulated as regards number, and if they] would be
regarded as exercises, after the manner of lessons in the schools
[and preaching], whose design is to teach the hearers, and, while
teaching, to move some to fear or faith.
But now they feign that these ceremonies are services of God, which
merit the remission of sins for themselves and for others. For on
this account they increase these ceremonies. But if they would
undertake them in order to teach and exhort the hearers, brief and
pointed lessons would be of more profit than these infinite babblings.
Thus the entire monastic life is full of hypocrisy and false
opinions [against the First and Second Commandments, against Christ].
To all these this danger also is added, that those who are in these
fraternities are compelled to assent to those persecuting the truth.
There are, therefore, many important and forcible reasons which free
good men from the obligation to this kind of life.
Lastly, the canons themselves release many who either without
judgment [before they have attained a proper age] have made vows when
enticed by the tricks of the monks, or have made vows under
compulsion by friends. Such vows not even the canons declare to be
vows. From all these considerations it is apparent that there are
very many reasons which teach that monastic vows such as have
hitherto been made are not vows; and for this reason a sphere of life
full of hypocrisy and false opinions can be safely abandoned.
Here they present an objection derived from the Law concerning the
Nazarites, Num. 6, 2f. But the Nazarites did not take upon
themselves their vows with the opinions which, we have hitherto said
we censure in the vows of the monks. The rite of the Nazarites was
an exercise [a bodily exercise with fasting and certain kinds of
food] or declaration of faith before men, and did not merit the
remission of sins before God, did not justify before God. [For they
sought this elsewhere, namely, in the promise of the blessed Seed.]
Again, just as circumcision or the slaying of victims would not be a
service of God now, so the rite of the Nazarites ought not to be
presented now as a service, but it ought to be judged simply as an
adiaphoron. It is not right to compare monasticism, devised without
God's Word, as a service which should merit the remission of sins and
justification, with the rite of the Nazarites, which had God's Word,
and was not taught for the purpose of meriting the remission of sins,
but to be an outward exercise, just as other ceremonies of the Law.
The same can be said concerning other ceremonies prescribed in the
Law.
The Rechabites also are cited, who did not have any possessions, and
did not drink wine, as Jeremiah writes, chap. 35, 6f. Yea, truly,
the example of the Rechabites accords beautifully with our monks,
whose monasteries excel the palaces of kings, and who live most
sumptuously! And the Rechabites, in their poverty of all things,
were nevertheless married. Our monks, although abounding in all
voluptuousness, profess celibacy.
Besides, examples ought to be interpreted according to the rule, i.e.,
according to certain and clear passages of Scripture, not contrary
to the rule, that is, contrary to the Scriptures. It is very certain,
however, that our observances do not merit the remission of sins or
justification. Therefore, when the Rechabites are praised, it is
necessary [it is certain] that these have observed their custom, not
because they believed that by this they merited remission of sins, or
that the work was itself a justifying service, or one on account of
which they obtained eternal life, instead of, by God's mercy, for the
sake of the promised Seed. But because they had the command of their
parents, their obedience is praised, concerning which there is the
commandment of God: Honor thy father and mother.
Then, too, the custom had a particular purpose: Because they were
foreigners, not Israelites, it is apparent that their father wished
to distinguish them by certain marks from their countrymen, so that
they might not relapse into the impiety of their countrymen. He
wished by these marks to admonish them of the [fear of God, the]
doctrine of faith and immortality. Such an end is lawful. But for
monasticism far different ends are taught. They feign that the works
of monasticism are a service, they feign that they merit the
remission of sins and justification. The example of the Rechabites
is therefore unlike monasticism; to omit here other evils which
inhere in monasticism at present.
They cite also from 1 Tim. 5, 11ff. concerning widows, who, as they
served the Church, were supported at the public expense, where it is
said: They will marry, having damnation, because they have cast off
their first faith. First, let us suppose that the Apostle is here
speaking of vows [which, however, he is not doing]; still this
passage will not favor monastic vows, which are made concerning
godless services, and in this opinion that they merit the remission
of sins and justification. For Paul with ringing voice condemns all
services, all laws, all works, if they are observed in order to merit
the remission of sins, or that, on account of them instead of through
mercy on account of Christ we obtain remission of sins. On this
account the vows of widows, if there were any, must have been unlike
monastic vows.
Besides, if the adversaries do not cease to misapply the passage to
vows, the prohibition that no widow be selected who is less than
sixty years, 1 Tim. 5, 9, must be misapplied in the same way. Thus
vows made before this age will be of no account. But the Church did
not yet know these vows. Therefore Paul condemns widows, not because
they marry, for he commands the younger to marry; but because, when
supported at the public expense, they became wanton, and thus cast
off faith. He calls this first faith, clearly not in a monastic vow,
but in Christianity [of their Baptism, their Christian duty, their
Christianity]. And in this sense he understands faith in the same
chapter, v. 8: If any one provide not for his own, and specially for
those of his own house, he hath denied the faith. For he speaks
otherwise of faith than the sophists. He does not ascribe faith to
those who have mortal sin. He, accordingly, says that those cast off
faith who do not care for their relatives. And in the same way he
says that wanton women cast off faith.
We have recounted some of our reasons and, in passing, have explained
away the objections urged by the adversaries. And we have collected
these matters, not only on account of the adversaries, but much more
on account of godly minds, that they may have in view the reasons why
they ought to disapprove of hypocrisy and fictitious monastic
services, all of which indeed this one saying of Christ annuls, which
reads, Matt. 15, 9: In vain they do worship Me, teaching for
doctrines the commandments of men. Therefore the vows themselves and
the observances of meats, lessons, chants, vestments, sandals,
girdles are useless services in God's sight. And all godly minds
should certainly know that the opinion is simply pharisaic and
condemned that these observances merit the remission of sins; that on
account of them we are accounted righteous, that on account of them,
and not through mercy on account of Christ, we obtain eternal life.
And the holy men who have lived in these kinds of life must
necessarily have learned, confidence in such observance having been
rejected, that they had the remission of sins freely, that for
Christ's sake through mercy they would obtain eternal life, and not
for the sake of these services [therefore godly persons who were
saved and continued to live in monastic life had finally come to this,
namely, that they despaired of their monastic life, despised all
their works as dung, condemned all their hypocritical service of God,
and held fast to the promise of grace in Christ, as in the example of
St. Bernard, saying, _Perdite vixi_, I have lived in a sinful way],
because God only approves services instituted by His Word, which
services avail when used in faith.
Part 36
Article XXVIII (XIV): _Of Ecclesiastical Power._
Here the adversaries cry out violently concerning the privileges and
immunities of the ecclesiastical estate, and they add the peroration:
All things are vain which are presented in the present article
against the immunity of the churches and priests. This is mere
calumny; for in this article we have disputed concerning other things.
Besides, we have frequently testified that we do not find fault
with political ordinances, and the gifts and privileges granted by
princes.
But would that the adversaries would hear, on the other hand, the
complaints of the churches and of godly minds! The adversaries
courageously guard their own dignities and wealth; meanwhile, they
neglect the condition of the churches; they do not care that the
churches are rightly taught, and that the Sacraments are duly
administered. To the priesthood they admit all kinds of persons
indiscriminately. [They ordain rude asses; thus the Christian
doctrine perished, because the Church was not supplied with efficient
preachers.] Afterwards they impose intolerable burdens, as though
they were delighted with the destruction of their fellowmen, they
demand that their traditions be observed far more accurately than the
Gospel. Now, in the most important and difficult controversies,
concerning which the people urgently desire to be taught, in order
that they may have something certain which they may follow, they do
not release the minds which are most severely tortured with doubt,
they only call to arms. Besides, in manifest matters [against
manifest truth] they present decrees written in blood, which threaten
horrible punishments to men unless they act clearly contrary to God's
command. Here, on the other hand, you ought to see the tears of the
poor, and hear the pitiable complaints of many good men, which God
undoubtedly considers and regards, to whom one day you will render an
account of your stewardship.
But although in the Confession we have in this article embraced
various topics, the adversaries make no reply [act in true popish
fashion], except that the bishops have the power of rule and coercive
correction, in order to direct their subjects to the goal of eternal
blessedness; and that the power of ruling requires the power to judge,
to define, to distinguish and fix those things which are serviceable
or conduce to the aforementioned end. These are the words of the
_Confutation_, in which the adversaries teach us [but do not prove]
that the bishops have the authority to frame laws [without the
authority of the Gospel] useful for obtaining eternal life. The
controversy is concerning this article.
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 | 24 |
25